Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

From: David
Date: July 12, 2013, 2:53:12 PM EDT
To: Dan, Paul
Cc: Jack
Subject: The Sky Hook

What is it that we are batting around here? We have Wheeler and his participatory Universe. What could this mean on a practical level? Could it mean perhaps that the universe is some kind of device that can be operated by consciousness? Wheeler says mind can interact with the quantum. What can it do? What can it not do? Is matter indeed 'plastic in the face of mind' as Philip K. Dick says?
What about timelines? Can they be controlled by consciousness? How do many worlds fit into a BPW cosmology?
How do the godlike abilities of telepathy, PK, precognition got into human evolution? These abilities are dangerous and like any good weapon, point both ways, at the shooter and at the target. For instance, in the countless reports of ETs
why are the overwhelming number of descriptions about ET always describing the pilots as telepathic? What  does this say about the way the universe works?Does this mean telepathy is the $1 chip in the big game?  I say it is the smallest coin that the big boys have in their quivers. There are of course more powerful abilities we have not yet begin to discover or explore. The idea that people can be taught remote viewing by other human beings is laughable
at this juncture despite what Russ Targ and others believe, so we humans are perhaps merely occupiers of the best possible purgatory or limbo. We are not a telepathic species, IMO. At best less than 20% of humans have any kind of ability to use telepathy. Will this minority become a ruling class? If some humans are able to contact others who are not here what will that lead to? Armageddon? More likely than a happy heaven where the lion lies down with the lamb!
I think we must dig deep into the nature of causality and the nature of mind and see how they are connected. This is what Jack and others are doing. We must explore the threats to our house of cards civilization and see if it is not we ourselves who present the biggest danger to our continued existence.

I do not believe in God, a primitive concept. But I certainly do believe the infinite universe is a device built to allow us to be gods if we can grasp our minds abilities and control and use them correctly. Of course we may not have the brain power to do this, but clearly there are folks in the universe who can and already are able to nudge the infinite pinball game and cheat without being penalized!

We must be nimble minded and see what philosophical ideas are the right ones for our BPW milkshake of ideas. As Dan says we need many flavors to make it work.

Jake Reason wrote:

MD02 wrote:Forgive the intrusion Dan,Cy, Jake:

No intrusion - rather synchronicity!

Thanks MD.  Dan knows Jack would enjoy your points.  So too Winnie-the-Pooh (RP-?), imo.  

From: Dan
Date: July 14, 2013, 2:29:16 PM EDT
To: Paul Zielinski
Cc: David Gladstone
Subject: Jack's 'positivism'

(cont.......)


Yes, Jack does aim at being a positivist.  How nearly does he achieve this putative goal?  

Well, for one thing, there was the God-phone incident.  That he has taken this incident to heart, does very significantly deviate from positivism.  

Also, his considerable interest in the combination of Destiny Matrix and the holographic mind on our future horizon does also seriously push the envelope of positivism, as he will not deny.  

The possibility of CTC's is another item of this ilk.  

Have I missed anything?  

Yes, he openly entertains the UTH.  And he is very serious about several aspects of parapsychology.  

What he most strongly rejects of the BPWH is its political incorrectness, in as much as it seems to adhere to a biblically inspired timeline.  


(cont........2)



On Jul 14, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Dan wrote:

No further word from Ron on SF.  

I will be with R&A on Tuesday for the biweekly LotP/WSR show, this one on lethal counter-poaching...... http://chroniclesofthelittleprincess.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/leopards-on-the-prowl-lethal-engagement-in-counter-poaching/

I should find out more, then.

In the meantime, are we about ready for an intervention with Jack?  

Jack is addicted to positivism.  I wish to prevail upon him to consider a human scale teleology, including an Omega-type event.  

I have tried this twice before, and have been met with ridicule each time.  

Jack is seriously concerned about the near-term future of humanity, but he is very skeptical that anything can be done about it.  I wish for him to consider the plausibility of external intervention.  We have little reason to doubt that this is something that he has already considered, in some detail.  We need only to encourage him to openly speculate about this possibility.


(cont......)

From: Dan
Date: July 14, 2013, 2:49:08 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: Re: Jack's 'positivism'

(cont.........2)


In point of fact, is it not fair to say that Jack is seriously conflicted between his positivism and something else?  What is this other PoV?  

This other PoV has much to do with Bohm, Einstein and Spinoza.  The latter two border on pantheism, if not also Pythagoreanism.  All three are very concerned that God does not play dice.  

They also share a considerable aversion to theism, as opposed to deism.  

Theism is probably the nub of the argument between Jack and myself.  

What leverage do I have, in this regard?  


(cont........3)
cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: July 14, 2013, 3:11:47 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: Re: Jack's 'positivism'

(cont.......3)


Leverage wrt theism...........?

With Jack, my top card is probably Ron.  That is why I wish to get Ron involved in this meeting on the 30th.  It may not be necessary for Ron to come to SF in order to play that card.  It might even be better if he did not.  We don't want to put him in the spotlight, and it's a good bet that he is not prepared to go there, yet.  

At the very least, however, I would expect the Princess and Chris L to participate in the radio show.  Aliyah would be the host, and the rest of us would be her guests.  That should not be a problem for anyone.  

The LotP/WSR show would be a toasting/roasting of Jack, with the Princess and me being his inquisitors.  

On the SF end, the show would also be videotaped, to go immediately onto youtube.  No holds barred.

The serious question is how to play the CoK card.  Surely I must make some allusion to the possible national security implications.  


(cont..........4)

From: Dan
Date: July 16, 2013, 10:07:25 AM EDT
To: JACK SARFATTI
Cc: David, Paul, Kat

Subject: Re: small is beautiful.....

mostly written yesterday.......
(cont.......3)


IOW, we persons, to be complete, must participate in our own ends.  There is a limit to which that participation may be diluted.  With the Earth, we are near to that limit.  A billion earths would break that fragile bond.  There must be a sense of solidarity, or the center will not hold.  

Trust must be personal, and it must be absolute.  It cannot be quantified or relativized.  It is an aspect of self-sacrificing love.  

Our alpha and omega must be personal to us, or we are cosmic orphans.  We are an absurdity in a meaningless universe.  Our bucks have to stop where we can personally participate.  Absolute personal redemption must be part of our existential bargain or contract.  

Most of us never have or no longer believe this.  An impersonal world is not the best possible world.  Why have we been forsaken?  

Our real challenge here is to find ourselves.  Only thus can we truly know ourselves, when we meet ourselves as if for the first time, when we understand our context.  

I'm simply saying that we must have a personal, common Source.  We hang together or we hang separately.  If we are not a cosmic tribe, what are we?  The Earth provides the logical/physical limit of our Tribal family.  A family because we share a common personal source.


One could say that we are chips off that Block, but we are more than that.  It is a magical holographic block, or horizon, if you will.  We have total access to that Source.  We are about to realize that.  



On Jul 15, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Dan wrote:

(cont........2)


A billion Earths, as the braincells of God.......?

Well, one thing about braincells is their redundancy.  A million of ours die every day, and we hardly notice the difference.  This is how holism works.  

You and I are very redundant anyway, so a little more redundancy shouldn't hurt us.  

But this is where the transcendental dimension comes back in the picture.  This is also about the Telos.......

If we truly are persons, then we need to have a sense of inner-direction, and, yes, inner worth.  We cannot just be a means to an end, we must, somehow, incarnate the Telos.  We must have a personal link to the Telos.  Why not just a link to a mini-telos?  

Notice also that we are social animals.  Our sense of self-worth must be shared.  I can merely submit, that our sense of self-worth is inextricably bound to our personal participation in the fact of our own existence.  Hmmm.........?  


(cont.......3)  



On Jul 15, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Dan wrote:

(cont......)  


But why can't we have the best of both worlds........ Heaven and several Earth-like planets to visit in our flying-suacers?  If one Earth is good, wouldn't two Earths be better?  

It might be ok for us as individuals, but what about God?  Well, who would not want to have more real-estate and more worker-bees?

Here is where pantheism intersects with personalism.......  Here is the thing about persons..... we are organic.  Yes, our brains have two hemispheres, but we don't have two heads, and there is probably a good reason for this.  

A crucial part of the BPWH, is that you and I are like the braincells of God.  If there were two Earths, God would then have two heads, which would be awkward.  

Well, but why not have the Earths be God's braincells, and have a billion Earths, like the astronomers say?  Wouldn't this make God and all of us a lot smarter?  


(cont.......2)



On Jul 15, 2013, at 5:03 PM, Dan wrote:

The next aspect of cosmology to consider is personalism, which comes in many flavors..... including Bostonian and Californian.  I tend toward the Californian, being more plebeian, as it were.  

The world is for, by and about persons.  What else could possibly matter?  I do love our dumb animal cousins, but they can only be ancillary.  Their's is not to reason why.  We can worry about them, but they cannot worry about us.

If God does not personally love us, then we are up a long creek without a paddle, as most of us already believe we are.  

We all have days of misanthropy, and I'm sure God does, too, but she wouldn't have made so many of us were she not also philanthropic.  And many suppose that she went overboard, in the population department.  This would be true, were this not a small world.

But, if the world is so small, why does it look so big?  For perfectly aesthetic reasons.  Who would want to see a fence in the sky.  Instead, we have an invisible, sheep fence.  It's called gravity.  

But haven't the Visitors come here to liberate us from our sheep farm?  Yes, they have, but in a somewhat more transcendental fashion, bless their hearts.  

Hey, is there anything wrong with transcendence?  


(cont......)



On Jul 15, 2013, at 1:09 PM, JACK SARFATTI  wrote:


On Jul 15, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Dan wrote:

>>Jack et al.,

>>My principal caveat with the BPWH is that the best world would be anthropocentric, and an anthropocentric world is necessarily a small world.

What you need is a nice comforter and a big Teddy Bear and a sexy nurse to tuck you in. ;-)



>>And, yes, I'm well aware that the entire modern intellectual corpus militates again anthropocentricity.  

>>So, I guess my coming to SF remains contingent upon your willingness to entertain this little idiosyncrasy of mine.  Is this going to be a problem?  

No, don't worry





The causal diamond is your small world - indeed it's even OBSERVER DEPENDENT! A PERSONAL VALIS GOD(D) CONSCIOUS COSMIC COMPUTER beamed back from the future directly into your THIRD EYE pineal gland!  ;-)



>>I just happen to like small worlds, especially the best possible small world.  Does this have to be a problem?  What else am I supposed to do?  Think up another cosmology?  

>>Are we saying that the BPWH is impossible?

No, but I think WPWH [worst possible] is more probable.

>>If you can demonstrate that, it would, in itself, be worth the trip.  

>>If the BPWH is not impossible, then is it implausible?  Again, that would be worth the trip!


>> (cont.......)


On Jul 15, 2013, at 10:00 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Obviously, mutants, ET-human hybrids like Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohamed etc. as well as Evil Ones like Hitler & Stalin with advanced PSI powers for both good and evil, migrate to the top of the heap and always have since we were genetically engineered a mere few tens of thousands of years ago by our future descendants in a CTC (Close Timelike Curve via a Stargate). This seems a very plausible model given the UFO data. People who make money on the stock market consistently are using precognitive remtoe viewing whether they realize or not. Similarly with scientific discovery and artistic creation.

On Jul 15, 2013, at 6:49 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

BPW "Best of all Possible Worlds" Pangloss, Voltaire's Candide - generalized action principle - constructive interference of quantum worlds.

Begin forwarded message:

From: David
Subject: The Sky Hook
Date: July 12, 2013 11:53:12 AM PDT
To: Dan, Paul
Cc: Jack Sarfatti

What is it that we are batting around here? We have Wheeler and his participatory Universe. What could this mean on a practical level? Could it mean perhaps that the universe is some kind of device that can be operated by consciousness? Wheeler says mind can interact with the quantum. What can it do? What can it not do? Is matter indeed 'plastic in the face of mind' as Philip K. Dick says?

What about timelines? Can they be controlled by consciousness? How do many worlds fit into a BPW cosmology?
How did the godlike abilities of telepathy, PK, precognition got into human evolution? These abilities are dangerous and like any good weapon, point both ways, at the shooter and at the target. For instance, in the countless reports of ETs why are the overwhelming number of descriptions about ET always describing the pilots as telepathic? What  does this say about the way the universe works?Does this mean telepathy is the $1 chip in the big game?  I say it is the smallest coin that the big boys have in their quivers. There are of course more powerful abilities we have not yet begin to discover or explore. The idea that people can be taught remote viewing by other human beings is laughable at this juncture despite what Russ Targ and others believe, so we humans are perhaps merely occupiers of the best possible purgatory or limbo. We are not a telepathic species, IMO. At best less than 20% of humans have any kind of ability to use telepathy. Will this minority become a ruling class? If some humans are able to contact others who are not here what will that lead to? Armageddon? More likely than a happy heaven where the lion lies down with the lamb!
I think we must dig deep into the nature of causality and the nature of mind and see how they are connected. This is what Jack and others are doing. We must explore the threats to our house of cards civilization and see if it is not we ourselves who present the biggest danger to our continued existence.

I do not believe in God, a primitive concept. But I certainly do believe the infinite universe is a device built to allow us to be gods if we can grasp our minds abilities and control and use them correctly. Of course we may not have the brain power to do this, but clearly there are folks in the universe who can and already are able to nudge the infinite pinball game and cheat without being penalized!

We must be nimble minded and see what philosophical ideas are the right ones for our BPW milkshake of ideas. As Dan says we need many flavors to make it work.

Sent from my iPhone

From: Dan
Date: July 16, 2013, 11:16:28 AM EDT
To: JACK
Cc: Paul, David
Subject: with flowers in my hair.......

I'll be leaving in a couple of hours to help Aliyah with her next show......

http://chroniclesofthelittleprincess.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/leopards-on-the-prowl-lethal-engagement-in-counter-poaching/

Afterwards we'll have time to discuss the putative SF show, on the 30th.  Ron was going to talk to David F about Larry.  Unless there has been a significant turnaround, I will not pursue further about having Larry and Chris come out.  We can save that for another time.  

What I want to do in SF, leading up to the 30th, will be to celebrate the demise of materialism.  

Note-bene, that I did not say physicalism.  Materialism is, by definition, reductive.  Physicalism may not need be so.  The jury is still out.  

The question is to what degree any form of physicalism would be able to encompass anything resembling personalism and panentheism, which are the most likely replacements for materialism.  I'm just a tad skeptical about that encompassment.  It might even be fair to say that I'm not terribly disposed to holding my breath, on that score, especially when I notice Jack turning blue in the face.  

I'm asking Jack to humor me about the probability of a paradigm inversion, IOW, the MoAPS.  In the past, Jack's humor has run a bit short with Small is Beautiful.  


(cont......)

From: Dan
Date: July 16, 2013, 11:57:18 AM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: Paul, David
Subject: Re: with flowers in my hair.......

(cont.......)


As my baseball coach once told, if you're going to make a mistake, make it big!  But in this case, my very big mistake is going to be about being very small.  

If there is a cosmic mind, it must be sapio-centric, and thereby have a strongly personal aspect, assuming that the advocates of Strong AI are all wet, an assumption that comes very easily to me, soul-lover that I am.

A major SW prediction is that the ET's are actually UT's, in drag.  So, if there is nobody else out there, in space-time, I'm strongly inclined to suppose that there is no there, out-there.  We are Atlas holding up the world, and we are getting ready to shrug.  

The best possible world is an organic world where no one is more than six degrees removed from Kevin Bacon, and everyone's Erdos # = < 7.0.  

It's be here or be square, and we are getting ready for our metamorphosis.  There is no reason that our Omega-point should be more than a thousand years hence.  The UT's are here to be our midwives.  

Maybe I'm wrong about no ET's, but Ron is in a position to know better.  I have to trust that he is not just leading us on.  He could be, but not if God has anything to say about it...... IGWT, all others pay cash.

If the world is so small, how do I explain cosmic rays and dinosaur bones?  Well, about the same way that I rationalize atoms........ they are emergent phenomena.  


(cont.......2)

From: Dan
Date: July 16, 2013, 12:27:13 PM EDT
To: JACK
Cc: Paul, David
Subject: Re: with flowers in my hair.......

(cont......2)


If atoms didn't already exist, we would have had to create them. Well, they didn't, so we did, with a little encouragement from God.

The point is that I'd much rather be trying to explain atoms, than trying to explain consciousness. Wouldn't you?

What are physicists and paleontologists good for, if they can't help God create a veil of nature to cover her Modesty? Who wants a naked singularity?

Yes, atoms naturally emerge from logic and Wigner's UEM. But from whence does math emerge, if not from the likes of Srinivasa?

I am simply postulating that, despite the protestations of the Platonists, math is irreducibly organic, coherent, holistic and so, yes, personal. After all, Pythagoras did believe in the Soul, as has every other philosopher. Have you ever seen a philosopher who did not believe in free will, with the possible dubious exception of Daniel Dennett?

dan wrote:
From: David
Subject: The Sky Hook
Date: July 12, 2013 11:53:12 AM PDT
To: Dan, Paul
Cc: Jack Sarfatti

We are not a telepathic species, IMO. At best less than 20% of humans have any kind of ability to use telepathy. Will this minority become a ruling class? If some humans are able to contact others who are not here what will that lead to? Armageddon? More likely than a happy heaven where the lion lies down with the lamb!

I think we must dig deep into the nature of causality and the nature of mind and see how they are connected. This is what Jack and others are doing. We must explore the threats to our house of cards civilization and see if it is not we ourselves who present the biggest danger to our continued existence.

From: Dan
Date: July 18, 2013, 11:00:31 AM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: JACK, David
Subject: SWH in San Francisco?

Counting down to purchasing an air ticket......

1.)  Should idealism be a dishonorable profession?  

Well, it has been a taboo subject amongst academics and intellectuals since Darwin.  

2.)  Materialism/reductionism reached its intellectual apogee in 1950, the year that WvO Quine began publishing his articles on holism.  

3.)  Materialism has been replaced by postmodernism, which prides itself on its pluralism, i.e. its incoherence.

4.)  Meanwhile, physicalism and physical cosmology struggle to maintain their coherence.  

Nonetheless, there is a continuing hegemony of physicalism, even within postmodernism, where it is perceived as a last bastion against metaphysics and religion.

5.)  Pluralism, however, is a luxury that is ill-afforded in a crisis where a concerted action is called for.  

Not a few of us sense a looming crisis for the world.  

6.)  I propose a rational theism, e.g. a limited form of panentheism.  

Only some form of rational theism can hope to provide a non-coercive framework for grappling with our global existential crisis.  


(cont.....)

From: Dan
Date: July 18, 2013, 11:22:11 AM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: JACK, David
Subject: Re: SWH in San Francisco?

(cont.......)


1.)  But why us, Lord?  

Yes, why Jack, Paul, David and Dan?  

By default, Lord....... by default.  IOW, it is us or rust.  

2.)  Why the SWH?  

Because coherence, like existence, has to begin somewhere.  That origin then becomes the center of the world.  

3.)  This also has to do with the ETH vs the UTH.

The Visitors have had ample opportunity to explain coherence to us.  By default, we now explain it to them, in this, our time of existential/spiritual crisis.  

4.)  Limited panentheism?

Yes, if the world is to be saved, it will be saved by humans, not by dolphins, bless their little hearts.  

5.)  God?

We are the braincells of God.  God is simply awaiting our awakening/quickening.  This Revelation will trigger our cosmic metamorphosis.  


(cont........2)  

From: Dan
Date: July 18, 2013, 12:03:23 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: Jack, David
Subject: Re: SWH (small world hyp.) in San Francisco......

(cont......2)


1.)  A butterfly in Africa can trigger a hurricane in Florida.  Can we afford to not emulate that butterfly, with a little help from above?  Does anyone see a more likely butterfly?  

Ok, so then what......?

2.)  Our main sticking point is simply to agree that, very likely, the best possible Creation is a small Creation.  

Again, the likelihood of the UTH vs the ETH is the most obvious way to demonstrate the SWH.  

3.)  The other point is that Creation was never meant to supplant Heaven or the Creator.  We are talking about panentheism.  We are NOT talking about pantheism.  

Transcendence lies in the spiritual dimension, not in the spatial dimension.  The modern mind commits the ultimate idolatry, nay, blasphemy, when it substitutes its quantitative infinity for the  qualitative infinity.  Did God lure us into this quantitative trap?  Of course she did.  It was an essential component in our temporal/historical plan of salvation.  


(cont.......3)
cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: July 18, 2013, 12:46:19 PM EDT
To: Paul Zielinski
Cc: Jack Sarfatti , David Gladstone
Subject: Re: SWH (small world hyp.) in San Francisco......

(cont........3)


If our future is about the spirit, why do I talk to physicists.........?  

Simply because I suppose there to be a logical connection between physics and metaphysics.  How could there not be?  

For instance, yesterday, I was reading the paper that Jack referred us to.......
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1527......

>>  In the 1930’s Pauli applied this na ̈ıf approach to the electromagnetic field (m = 0 for the photon) and choosing the inverse of the classical electron radius for the cutoff, i.e. M = 2πme/α(here α standing for the fine structure constant). Then he plugged the result into Einstein’s universe formula (2.8 ), i.e. he replaced ρΛ there by the previous one-loop estimate of the ZPE, and obtained the “radius” of the ensuing universe:

..2π 1 −3/2 ..MP ..α2
a= G M2 =(2π) m m . (5.3)

It would not even reach the Moon! <<

I'm hardly suggesting that we take this literally, but, nonetheless, we are bound to find, within our phenomenal/holographic world, traces of the noumenal/hologramic reality.

We can suppose that we are the avatars in a virtual-like world, and that, if we know where to look, we can find traces of the substrate. In the explicate order, we find traces of the implicate order. We don't have to travel to the future/Omega horizon to do this. There is that of the Omega in each of us. We need to coax it out. That is all we have to do, consult the advanced potentials within us.


(cont.........4)

From: Dan
Date: July 21, 2013, 10:04:00 AM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: Re: general talking points, and radio show

(cont.......4)  


Ok, so conversations with Paul and David have gotten me back on the path to the Telos........

Paul reminds me that it is the quantum, of course, that makes atoms more than atomic.  Yes, but we need something more than that.  

David points out that...... > > Letters exist as long as we use the language but the meaning derived from them is time dependent. Our understanding of words is totally constrained by the time in which we live. Old meanings of familiar words disappear and new meanings present themselves. <<

Also true, but still.........

I'm thinking of a binary encoded hologram vs an analog hologram, for instance.  There must be a supra-quantum entanglement of the bits, as there is of the letters.  Yes, the entanglement is in our minds, but I am an idealist.  Meaning is not an illusion.  I believe in the living words, not the dead letters.  But, no, the letters cannot be dead.  Even they must participate in the conatus or willfulness.  

There must be a context dependency, but how can it be measured?  Yes, there is a subjective dependency, but I don't believe that will suffice.  Need there be, or can there be, anything more than intersubjectivity?  It is objectivity that I'm trying to avoid.  

How do numbers differ from letters in this regard?  They don't.  Am I forgetting something as simple as the sounds?  Do pictograms have a sound?  Or think of the lines in a cartoon?  There can also be stray markings or noise.  There can be codes.  

I'm trying to suggest that contextuality is like the aether.  It has to have a physical aspect.  It is a field of potentiality, as all fields are.  

Btw, Paul pointed out that the number of photons is observer dependent.  This can be seen in the Unruh acceleration effect, for instance.  The same does not apply to fermions, unless we wish to count super-symmetry.  

In this same vein, I wondered what Mach would think of the Higgs particle, in terms of its (local?) explanation of mass.  



On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Dan wrote:

(cont........3)


And, of course, so do we exist, for that selfsame 'reason'.  But which came first, the will or the way?  Is there a choice?  

So, yes, letters follow from words, in a strongly ontological sense.  The fact that I seem to be typing letters, before the words appear, notwithstanding.  

Only when I have a writer's block, do the words seem to dissolve back into letters.  Information is like that.  

But how can I prove this?  Where is the smoking gun?  

I'm not denying the existence of letters or atoms, but I am saying that their existence is derivative, in a very strong sense, much stronger than would ordinarily be suppose by typesetters and biochemists, for instance.  

Ok, but the real question before us is..... so what?  

My only coherent answer has to be...... so everything, and so the eschaton.


(cont........4)  



On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Dan wrote:

(cont......2)


Ok, let's recap, for a bit..........

Taking the Telos seriously entails that we take the mind seriously, with the likely result that we suppose the world to be a mental construct.  Mathematics and logic are a significant part of that construct.  In the end, we have not much more choice in the creation of mathematics than we have in the creation of the world.  

It is true that we don't have a model for the emergence of it from bit.  Indeed, in photography the process appears to work the other way, as seems all too obvious.  But I can only suppose that cells and atoms emerge from us, as we emerge from God.  Just as there turn out to be no sense-data, so there are no data-bits, despite the admittedly strong appearances to the contrary.  

I might as well claim that there are no letters in the words I am typing.  There is information and there is meaning.  Which came first?  

Hold the phone, just a minute.  I was just talking to David, and he introduced the word 'conatus', qv.  It is simply a more willful form of vitalism.  Let's see if that helps.........  Nietzsche might call it the will to power, I would call in the will to exist.  

I think I'm trying to say the letters and atoms exist through a cosmic conatus, bless their little hearts.  


(cont........3)



On Jul 20, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Dan wrote:

(cont......)


6.)  It may be that the human brain can serve as a model for cosmology.  Each braincell may be thought of as a monad.  Our phenomenal sensorium emerges from the interactions of those monads, in a holographic manner.  So to, then, may the world be the sensorium of the cosmic mind or implicate order, wherein each of us is a microcosmic monad of that hologram.  Other phenomenal or sensorial worlds need not be postulated.  

How then does ego consciousness differ from God consciousness?  Our occasional mystical, transpersonal and other numinous experiences may be seen as flashes of that cosmic consciousness.  Those are our stairway to heaven/eternity.  Space and time become more malleable and permeable, in a collective manner.  

Through God's eyes, we come to know ourselves for the first time.  Now we see as through a glass, darkly.  

The 'wiring' of the Earth or the networking of humanity is a preliminary but essential part of this process.  The impending knowledge implosion into a coherent paradigm or gestalt is another aspect.  

7.)  We should keep in mind that our memories, like our perceptions, need not be distinct from the world itself.  It may well be that 'causation', such as it is, flows mainly from the Telos, as mediated though our individual and collective memories.  This could also be viewed as an application of Occam's razor.  The akashic record is just part of the cosmic hologram that makes up the noumenal aether.


(cont.......2)



On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Dan wrote:

Keep in mind that all that Aliyah needs by Monday is a one or two sentence description of the show.  Let's keep it flexible!  Consider a possible focus on the UTH vs. the ETH, in the context of a Telos.  

But then here are talking points for our other meetings, preceding the show......

1.)  The jumping off point will be teleology and the Telos........

2.)  My point is that the Telos is wonderful, but it won't do us any good unless it can be humanized or historicized.  

IOW, the Telos must somehow be conformable to the arc of human history.  The arc of recorded history is only a few thousand years.  The telic horizon cannot significantly exceed that scale.  In order that the Telos have a personal meaning for us, it cannot be more than a few generations removed from the present.  This would place it at less than a thousand years hence.  

3.)  In this context, we need to review the UTH vs. the ETH.

4.)  The nature of the soul.......  How does it relate to memory and the aether?  

5.)  We do want to talk about the ontological implications of the aether, and how it could relate to everything else.  


(cont.......)

From: Dan
Date: July 22, 2013, 1:25:35 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: Re: recapping......

(cont.......2)


Wigner, famously, refers to the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, but not to its corollary, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematicians. Is this not just to point to a necessary connection between the aether and the akasha? Or is there no relation between electron identity and personal identity?

And what about his Symmetries and Reflections? What is the ground for the symmetries and the multifarious 'breakings' thereof? Or, which came first, the vacuum or the symmetry thereof?


Jack believes that our Eschaton is imminent, but that our Destiny is remote. He may be right, but that does seem to entail a fairly obvious design flaw..... Mind the Gap!

What are the Visitors here for, if not to mind the Gap? Shouldn't we try to lend them a hand?


Perhaps we should compare the subjectivity of the future horizon to a mirage in the desert. Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink. We need a wormhole to reach that far horizon, and all the premoderns knew that the horizon was also within. What is the soul good for, if not for that? What could our soul be attached to, if not to that. Jack's call from the future, was it on a landline or was it wi-fi?


(cont......3)



On Jul 22, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Dan wrote:

(cont........)


Another point to consider are the many confusions between pantheism and panentheism........

Allegedly the pantheists are atheists. For instance, Paul and I have discussed the alleged atheism of Spinoza, the archetypal modern pantheist.

The point is that pantheists identify God with nature or world. Transcendentalism is not allowed. But then what about the aether, akasha and nirvana? Can they not be seen as part of the world? Sure, if you are a materialist/mechanist, then pantheism entails atheism, but who ever met a materialist pantheist?

My point is simply that pantheists are a lot closer to panentheism than they are to materialism. What particularly distinguishes pantheists from materialists is the belief in a soul? And what is a soul, if not something ethereal?


And then we have the whole question of mathematics...... what is the ontological status of numbers, etc.?

In many ways, mathematical objects have a firmer ontological status than do any 'natural' objects. Yet, where do they reside, if not in aksha-land, along with our memories.


(cont......2)



On Jul 22, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Dan wrote:

One thing we haven't discussed lately is the soul. Jack has a lot of ambivalence on this point, and so does most everyone else.

What does the soul have to do with the Aether? What does the aether have to do with heaven?

Btw, the Vedic word for the aether is akasha, sound familiar, which should be another name for Jack's holographic horizon. Nirvana and akasha might also be identified as the mind of God, of which we are microcosms.

David pointed to 'conatus', another venerable idea for the ground of being, of quintessence, of the philosophers stone, etc.

Paul and I have discussed relationalism. In materialism all relations are external, and are mediated by space and time. In immaterialism all relations are internal, and are mediated by the aether or cosmic mind.

As a monist, I suppose that the plurality of the world is an illusion, which would be another way of saying that the relations are mediated through Maya, yet another version of the Aether.

Will all of this be too much for Jack? Of course it will! But my plan is to spin an Indra's web right around Jack. Thus will we, Lilliputians of philosophy, slay the 'giant' of Physics, Jack being our little Gulliver.


(cont........)

pman35 wrote:Ok Dan i will make that my next priority to get sorted for you. Can you continue checking for errors for me please thanks

Question has to do with Jack's views on immaterialism.......

Is the paranormal not evidence for immaterialism?

Do Bohm's later views not favor immaterialism. Explicate is a projection of implicate. Implicate is quasi physical.

Is his telos physical? Is the mind physical? Free-will? AI & the soul?

Disembodied mind/God/VALIS/etc...... Is it 2D or 3D?

NDE's, survival, reincarnation......

UEM. Shape-shifting.

UTH/ETH.

How many worlds? Why is this world so big? # of souls...... finite? BPW?

Is there a Creator? Would we have preferred a Creator?

Disturbing message? Why cover-up?

Phone call. CTC. VALIS intervention.

PK. Mind over matter. Heaven.

National Security. Survival.... until when? How not a revelation that includes telos? We are all in the same boat, but to where? Or is it abandon ship?

Virtual reality. Are we dreaming?

Why not more phone calls? More interaction?

This could not be an average world.

Should we not be speculating and keeping our options open?

Both science and religion suppress speculation. In a crisis, need we not be thinking outside the box? Do we not need a new vision?

Jack should be doing this for his patriotic duty. Is he an atheist?

Do we not need a vision to motivate us toward a shared goal?

To have gotten us this far, the force must be with us. Should it desert us now?

But where is the physics in all of this? What can Jack do? It has to do with cosmology. Let us not forget anthropics, and mind-brain. Jack has been a big nay-sayer. Despite postmodernism, physics still presses its hegemony wrt ontology.

The eschaton can replace Jihad. All share a soul and all go to heaven.

Science vs religion...... Science has never budged.

The hegemony of science depends on the continuation of progress.

The BPWH is the logical fulfillment of reason.

From: Paul
Date: July 23, 2013, 5:28:08 PM PDT
To: Dan
Cc: David
Subject: Proposed Agenda for July 2013 Conference

This is what I have so far,. Consider it to be a first draft. I'll print out copies so we can talk about it later this evening.

_______________________________________________________________

Proposed Agenda for SF Conference on Teleology, Eschatology, and Modern Cosmology

1. Modern physics and philosophical idealism

Philosophical idealism: Plato, Leibniz, Berkeley. Monads as ideal atoms of perception. Kantian transcendentalism. Natural science as logos. The relationship of philosophical idealism and Kantian transcendental philosophy to relativity theory and Copenhagen quantum mechanics vs. the Bohmian paradigm. What does physics have to say about idealism? What does philosophical idealism have to say about physics? Does modern physics teach us that the natural world is a mental construct? The physical world as pure information. Wheeler’s “observation-event” ontology.

2. Teleology in classical thought and natural science

Plato’s views on teleology in his Phaedo. Aristotle’s definition of “final causes” in his Physics. Teleology as causal explanation based on observed goal-oriented behavior and apparent purposefulness. The relationship between teleology and Christian eschatology. Teleology vs. teleonomy. Teleological explanations in classical biology and evolutionary theory. The 20th century suppression of teleology under the neo-Darwinist synthesis. Neo-Darwinism as dogma. Teleological aspects of physical cosmology. Chardin’s and Tipler’s concepts of a cosmic Omega Point. Time scales. Cosmological fine tuning and the telic universe. The multiverse as reductio ad absurdum on “cosmological neo-Darwinism”. Chris Langan’s CTMU.

3. The holographic principle in black hole physics and Λ-CDM cosmology

What does holography mean in today’s physical cosmology? Black hole thermodynamics as a holographic compression of 3D physical information to a 2D submanifold. Extension of black hole thermodynamics to cosmological horizons. How far can the hologram analogy be pushed? Does the 3D world encode onto a 2D surface (holographic encoding), or can the cosmic 2D hologram project an internal 3D virtual reality (holographic projection)? Can such a hypothesis be tested empirically? Λ-CDM cosmology and thermodynamic holography as the basis for a physical Omega Point.

4. The future de Sitter horizon as a computational membrane, signaling information back to the present

Here we will discuss Jack’s latest ideas on Hawking radiation, Hawking-Beckenstein-Susskind black hole thermodynamics, and advanced signaling from our future de Sitter horizon, which in Jack’s model is a membrane of finite thickness capable of processing physical information and transmitting the results to the present by advanced radiation. Jack will explain the details of his new cosmological model, and how it can explain away dark energy.

5. Our 3D world conceived as a computer simulation holographically projected from the future

Can Jack’s future de Sitter horizon be considered to project a virtual 3D reality, analogous to a virtual 3D reality simulated by software running on ordinary digital computers? How could the memory and computational capacity required to project such a simulation be contained inside a cosmological horizon? Does Jack’s model for our future de Sitter horizon as a holographic computational membrane support this idea? And if so, what implications would this have for philosophical idealism? Can it be argued that cosmological holography implies the immateriality of the physical 3D world? That the 3D world is a kind of mental construct, and the cosmological computing membrane could be considered to function as “the mind of God”? Our are ideas our own, or are they being signaled to us from the future? What are the implications for human intelligent design and human free will?

6. Self-consistent time loops in contemporary physics and their implications

Time loops in general relativity. Grandfather paradoxes and self-consistency conditions. The need for closed timelike curves in spacetime. The need for QM corrections to eliminate paradoxes. Quantum computational models for CTCs in general. Deutsch’s and Lloyd’s quantum computational models for CTCs. Do Seth Lloyd’s time loops depend on the existence of closed timelike geodesics in the spacetime of GR, or is Lloyd’s quantum computational model independent of GR and its spacetime? What are the philosophical implications of such timeloops? Do such timeloops support the idea of an endless cosmological cycle outside of the space time of GR?

7. The concepts of “aether” and “soul” in classical philosophy and classical physics

Classical concepts of the aether. Aether as the breath of the pagan gods. Aether as fifth element or quintessence. Aether as “subtler” or “finer” than ordinary matter. Aether vs. Apeiron. Aether vs. atoms and the void. Aether as plenum in Descartes and Leibniz. Newton’s gravitational ether – material or non-material? Newton’s duplicity -- “hypotheses fingo”. Aether vs. action- at-a-distance in the 17th century war against occultism. The crude materialist “luminiferous ethers” of various 19th century theorists – fruitful metaphor, or sheer speculative metaphysics, to be “committed to the flames” in the name of good science? How far can the analogy between “aether” and “ponderable matter” be pushed?

8. The status of “aether” in modern physics

Mach’s and Poincare’s attitudes to the luminiferous aether. The aether of Poincare and Lorentz. Einstein’s 1905 relativity paper, and what it really said and did not say about the luminiferous aether. The folklore of “Einstein the aether-slayer”. The positivists’ Machist conceits, initially encouraged by Einstein. Einstein’s abandonment of Machian philosophy in favor of the Duhemian philosophy of science taught to him by Friedrich Adler in 1910-11. Einstein’s shocking reversal in his1920 Leiden address, in which he says that the only difference between the aether of his 1916 theory of gravity and 1905 aether of Poincare and Lorentz is non-constancy of the metric components g_ μν in the presence of a gravitational field. Einstein’s 1926 meeting with Heisenberg and his repudiation of his 1905 Poincaré- and Mach-influenced arguments for redundancy of the aether. The modern schism between quantum field theory and canonical general relativity. Feynman’s field theories of gravity and the Warsaw conference. Straight QFT models vs. condensate models of the “physical vacuum”. Implications of the Higgs observations at CERN. Does the Higgs field really explain inertia? Woodward’s so-called “Machian” model for inertia. Can Woodward’s belief in physical action-at-a-distance be justified? Or is Einstein’s new “relativized” aether needed after all in order to keep action-at-a-distance out of modern physics? Can the EPR effect be interpreted as action-at-a-distance, or is all signaling of information still constrained by the objective properties of the physical vacuum? The Aether as emergent from a non-material Apeiron of virtual particles. Einstein’s belief that all matter emerges from the physical vacuum, aka the “relativized” aether.


9. Aether, logos, memory, and soul

Aether as a medium of universal communication and connection. Aether as non-local repository of physical information. Karl Pribram’s holographic theory of memory and consciousness. Relationship to the Akashic Record. Relationship to ESP and remote viewing. Aether from the standpoint of pantheism and panentheism. Aether and conatus in Leibniz and Spinoza. Possible relationship with belief in immortality of the soul. Omega point as transcendent cosmic intelligence.

10. The prospects for a post-Copernican re-centering of humanity in the Best of All Possible Worlds

Does the universe have a physical center? Is there any support in contemporary physics for a new anthropocentrism? Can the earth be made the physical center of the world? Or is it only possible to say that physical reality can be described as it appears from any point of view, including that of an earthbound observer? Can we at least say that we are at the center of our own cosmological horizon? Or can we dispense with physical objectivity entirely, and consider the earth to be the center in terms of value? Is life an accident that could happen anywhere at any time? Or can it be argued that life on Earth is an extremely improbable event? Are ETs real? Or are they based on a mistaken belief that life is accidental and nothing too improbable? Can events on Earth also be explained by the presence of UTs? Does available technology (not necessarily in the public domain) allow the engineering of transhumans? Has this already occurred? Might the revelation of the existence of UTs, the availability of immortality, and the evolution to a higher plane of consciousness for humanity, among other radical innovations, constitute a kind of “Rapture”? Is the Internet destined to bring us to the Kingdom of God dreamt of by the ancient Rabbis?

11. The prospects for a “small world” re-scaling of the parameters of holographic cosmology for a near-term Omega Point

How malleable are the parameters of contemporary cosmology? Which assumptions can be modified, added, or excluded that would shorten the perceived time interval from the present to the cosmological Omega Point? Can we assume that theories such as 1916 GR are accurate at cosmic scales? Can we assume that light propagation at cosmic distance obeys the laws that we assume it does? Is it possible to view the currently estimated timeframes as “optical illusions” resulting from false assumptions? Is it at least logically and mathematically possible to reformulate existing cosmological models such that the actual scales and time frames are significantly different from what they are currently considered to be?

Jake Reason wrote:

pman35 wrote:Ok Dan i will make that my next priority to get sorted for you. Can you continue checking for errors for me please thanks

I just can't thank you enough for all you do, Pman.  What a blessing we have here, in you.